Pages

May 29, 2011

On Preservation | Mbi Ruajtjen e Objekteve

TheNew York Timescritic, Nicoloi Ouroussoff, has written an interesting article about "Cronocaos" Exhibition as a manifesto, projecting viable observations and provoking ideas on preservation. The questions he asks are important in understanding what a city is (or has become) today.

"Has preservation become a dangerous epidemic? Is it destroying our cities?"

"Cronocaos" was first shown at the 2010 Architecture Biennale in Venice. It is now on view at theNew Museum in New York City. Organized by Rem Koolhaas and Shohei Shigematsu, it portrays what can happen to an aged city when it is repackaged for tourists and wealthy homeowners. It has become a product of deals made by governments and builders, leading to a displacement of cultural and social scenes, in favor of commercial and boutique storefronts.

-

All over the world, even the smallest renovations of aged historic buildings are advertised as ways of preserving them. Their facades are being cleaned up and interiors stripped of any history. They have lost their character and meaning, but are more appealing and visually fitting, because they are "old." It is ironic that the outcome of this kind of preservation is literally 'timeless." By blending what is real and what is fake, the city has lost the sense of what it is supposed to be: a collection of buildings, people, and life, accumulated over time. Neighborhoods are in risk of becoming non-places like airports or malls.Everywhere, urban diversity and historical layers are being replaced by universal, consumer driven, money making aesthetics. According toKoolhaas, this so-called preservation is not favoring the great, the ancient, or that which might deserve it. It has become a selection vulnerable to political motivation and correctness. It is done for the wrong reasons while triggering more development and speculated land values. He argues that the result is a“a new form of historical amnesia, one that, perversely, only further alienates us from the past.” Is he right?

-

The idea of preservation as any other can be looked at and interpreted in many ways. It can be important in order to build up the historical, cultural, and environmental heritage. It also can help future generations understand their foundations. But, (as mentioned above) it can be misdirected, misused, and be politically driven, which would destroy its purpose altogether, because it will lose sight of what is worth preserving. It would be interesting to see (and predict) what will be preserved from this present time. We live in a material age driven by technology where fast can be the only way. New technological deiscoveries and designs that are supposed to give us the most out of life on this planet while enhancing its quality, seems to only have made us so dependent on it that we have lost all sense of context. The 6 month rule is now the golden rule. Just like our gadgets, everything depreciates in value after this 6 month cycle, (even our quality of life). -I'd like to see how it'll play out of course, but i'd like to ask a few questions also.What differences from the past to the present are and will be worth preserving in the future? Is this fast-forward mode, making our context blurry and the content of our lives ephemeral? And how do we preserve that?

No comments:

Subscribe

Author

Architectural Designer & Urban Researcher.
__Born in Tirana & living in Detroit Mich.
__I am currently involved in design research and public architectural projects that focus on improving urban conditions through cultural, spatial and ideological tactics.
__I hold a Masters degree in Architecture from University of Michigan & a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from Lawrence Technological University
__I was a Fulbright Fellow to Albania in 2011-2012, researching "Reactivating Public Space in Tirana: Enabling New Continuities That Inform Urban Performance".
__Contact me here or at: diagstudio.com